How to write review paper for conference

How to write review paper for conference

A review paper is not a "term paper" or book report. It is not merely a report on some references you found. Instead, a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field This is how I write reviews: The manuscript [title here] presents [ sentence summary of the paper to demonstrate that you get what the paper is about. This demonstrates that you actually took the time to read and understand.] This is [say something good about the technique. Typically, one reviewer will be called upon to summarize the paper, all the paper’s reviews, and their personal opinion in the meeting, and others chime in with other thoughts. • A review is a chance to get your own thoughts on the paper straight by writing them down. It’s surprising how your opinion of a paper can change by being 1

Theoretical Computer Science Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for theoretical computer scientists and researchers in related fields. It only takes a minute to sign up.

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search. This is related to the general question of " How do I referee a paper? I am reviewing a paper for a conference, and this paper should be rejected, because it is not significant enough for publication and has flaws in some of its technical details. The paper is not wrong, but the ways in which it is right are not very interesting. How do I write a negative review in such a settings?

More importantly, how do I do this as a non-senior researcher? As an example, they make part of their argument through numerics, but I can prove the same result analytically.

The analytic treatment is longer than what I can include in a review. I know the author's emails the review process is not blind both waysshould I email them? This is a conference, how to write review paper for conference, so there is no time for revisions, will they be mad at me for rejecting their paper? Should I email them before or after they receive the reviews?

The paper is also sparsely cited, and does not connect strongly to existing literature. Firstly, the review process is blind, so you simply have to do the best that you can. Be objective, be polite, give good reasons — see other question. Authors tend to appreciate comments, even if they mean more work. If the paper is borderline and is worth improving, then give as many comments as you have time for. Papers get rejected, we learn to live with it. The best you can do is provide good comments to help the authors improve the paper for next time round.

Authors may get mad, but they don't get even. If the paper is terrible, just save your time and don't bother with all the comments, how to write review paper for conference. Write a sufficiently convincing review giving reasons why the paper should be rejected, point out that there are many typos and other mistakes, but don't enumerate them all. Maybe you should get credit for your contribution. You certainly should never write up your results independently, not until the paper has appeared in print.

It helps if you address the papernot the authors. Make it as non-personal as possible. Say how the paper should be revised, not what the authors should do.

Say that Theorem 3 is wrong, not that the authors are wrong. Sure, senior researchers write one-line reviews, but that does not mean that a four-page review is too long for a conference paper.

If you write a long review, how to write review paper for conference, of course anyone will immediately guess that this is written by a junior researcher, but I do not see any reason to avoid it. However, if you write a long review, it is extremely important that it is well-structured and that anyone can find how to write review paper for conference recommendation i. Make your recommendation stand out, and make sure this part usually very near the beginning of your review is very brief.

The job of a reviewer is how to write review paper for conference evaluate whether the paper is worthy of publication, how to write review paper for conference. A nice reviewer also helps the authors make their research better.

Fixing the paper is not the job of the reviewer. There should be no difference between a review by a junior or senior researchers, though in practice, a senior researcher might spend much less time and effort on it, and will feel much more secure in judging a paper as unworthy. I agree with Jukka Suomela that the review needs to be well structured. You want it to be useful to the editor, as well as to the authors, and you want to make it such that the authors cannot weasel their way out of doing what is necessary by "forgetting" to address an issue that is somewhere buried in your long-winded explanation.

The manuscript [title here] presents [ sentence summary of the paper to demonstrate that you get what the paper is about. This demonstrates that you actually took the time to read and understand. The authors will feel better]. Thus, I recommend [state your recommendation - unless you're supposed to communicate it separately to the editor, as you may see on some electronic review submission sites this gives the editor more freedom to override one of the reviewers.

That's their job. Also, you do not recommend any future work they should do on this project. The issues they need to address are those that allow them to actually how to write review paper for conference the points that they claim they do.

Check your summary if you're not sure]. Also, leave out the trivial stuff like typos - instead write e. If you do have a bit of additional time, re-read the major issues again to make sure you're explaining clearly what is wrong and how you expect it to improve.

This is a lot more important to both the editor and the authors]. Note that I would not write out an analytical proof for them. It is their job to write their paper. State "this result should be be proven how to write review paper for conference, for example by following the XX approach".

Once you see the paper published somewhere else, and they still don't have an analytical solution, you can contact the authors, saying "Hey, I just saw your paper, and I had an idea for an analytical solution. Are you interested in a collaboration?

Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. How to write a negative review for a conference paper? Ask Question. Asked 10 years, 7 months ago. Active 10 years, 7 months ago. Viewed 4k times. To extract the general questions: How does a junior researcher write a negative review?

soft-question paper-review. Improve this question. edited Apr 13 '17 at Community Bot 1. asked Feb 22 '11 at Are you reviewing any other papers at the same conference, so you have a baseline for comparison?

As long as you stick to facts it should not matter at all. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer. answered Feb 22 '11 at Dave Clarke Dave Clarke By how to write review paper for conference a long, thorough, honest, but polite review.

There is no such thing as "too long for a review". Jukka Suomela Jukka Suomela Summary of the paper" very short"2. Recommendation" very short"3. Hence the recommendation will be easy to find.

This is how I write reviews: The manuscript [title here] presents [ sentence summary of the paper to demonstrate that you get what the paper is about. Check your summary if you're not sure] Minor Issues [keep this short, unless you specifically want to send the message to the editor that the paper is how to write review paper for conference of little flaws and thus bad.

This is a lot more important to both the editor and the authors] Note that I would not write out an analytical proof for them. Jonas Jonas 3 3 bronze badges. Otherwise they might be rejected because of those the next time, looping unecessarily, how to write review paper for conference. I tried to explain a bit better. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google.

Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. Featured on Meta. CM escalations - How we got the queue back down to zero. Updates to Privacy Policy September Unpinning the accepted answer from the top of the list of answers.

how to write a review paper II how to write a review article II how to write a research paper

, time: 29:59

This is how I write reviews: The manuscript [title here] presents [ sentence summary of the paper to demonstrate that you get what the paper is about. This demonstrates that you actually took the time to read and understand.] This is [say something good about the technique. Typically, one reviewer will be called upon to summarize the paper, all the paper’s reviews, and their personal opinion in the meeting, and others chime in with other thoughts. • A review is a chance to get your own thoughts on the paper straight by writing them down. It’s surprising how your opinion of a paper can change by being 1 A review paper is not a "term paper" or book report. It is not merely a report on some references you found. Instead, a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field